Awhile back, Charles Brown wrote:
Doesn't it seem likely that [the lack of] depressions (in the US)
since the 30's is due to government application of economic science ?
I said:
A little. But mostly it was a passive matter: it was the balance
wheel on the economy that the large government
Jim Devine
Thanks for your reply
^^^
A little. But mostly it was a passive matter: it was the balance wheel
on the economy that the large government budget (warfare/welfare
state) creates. In addition, financial reforms such as the creation of
bank deposit insurance (along with strict banking
Let's hypothesize that a Depression were reasonably probable in, say,
2010. How would it affect organizing activity? What sort of skills
should local groups try to develop? What sort of speculations ought
left
economists and sociologists engage in? Should we start incorporating
such a prediction
CB: Until the 30's and 40's isn't it true that the government didn't
solve recessions , rather they were resolved by the businesses
themselves ?
True, except that military spending rose during wars, encouraging
economic booms (e.g., WWI).
The Fed didn't really have the power to do anything
Jim Devine wrote:
Or is there really a lot of forest fire fuel piling up somewhere so
that there will be a really big one ?
it's mostly in the form of excessive and shaky consumer debt and bank
assets that turn out (or will turn out) to be bad.
Ordinary recessions do not, I think, have
You can look to California to see one kind of response to ordinary recessions.
Arnold is planning to make massive cuts, concentrated on k-14 education,
Medi-Cal,
and welfare. Almost everything will hit the poor especially hard. And the Dems
have protested, but cannot raise taxes without 2/3
Michael Perelman wrote:
You can look to California to see one kind of response to ordinary
recessions.
Arnold is planning to make massive cuts, concentrated on k-14 education,
Medi-Cal,
and welfare. Almost everything will hit the poor especially hard. And the
Dems
have protested, but
All repub. legislators signed a no-tax pledge.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 06:07:39PM -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
the question is whether some of the GOPniks can be dislodged from
their absolute Rejectionism, their opposition to any and all tax
increases. Some, more charitable, observers think that
Michael Perelman wrote:
All repub. legislators signed a no-tax pledge.
hey, if Mitt Romney can be an opportunist, so can they.
--
Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael
Perelman
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:52 PM
To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Query on Recessions
I believe that your first question is correct. According to Marx,
recession/depressions shock the system
One minor amplification of Jim Devine's excellent note. He wrote:
A key problem is that the Greenspan years involved not solving
recessions as much as delaying them.
Marx was probably correct in saying that delays -- in effect, trying to resolve
one
concrete contradiction -- only makes the
Michael Perelman
One minor amplification of Jim Devine's excellent note. He wrote:
A key problem is that the Greenspan years involved not solving
recessions as much as delaying them.
Marx was probably correct in saying that delays -- in effect, trying to
resolve one
concrete contradiction --
Is it not correct that fairly frequent recessions are a necessity of the
capitalist system? And certainly, in practice, they have been happening
every five to ten years for a couple of centuries.
But both on this list and in the financial columns of the media everyone
is fussing about whether or
I believe that your first question is correct. According to Marx,
recession/depressions shock the system, generally making it stronger, but when
then
contradictions become too extreme, then even a small shock can be fatal.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:37:34PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:
Is it not
14 matches
Mail list logo
